You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #27: headnotes (ie notes of the court reporter) are not controlling [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
27. headnotes (ie notes of the court reporter) are not controlling
if the headnote fudged, and I'm not sure it did without reading the full decision, and later courts and judges used the headnote as precedent, they were idiots.

It is now settled law. Of course, it can be overturned by an act of Congress. That would require a whole new set of laws for dealing with corporations. I don't see personhood for corporations worse than indemnity for the corporate officers and board. Get rid of that and you'd see more responsible decisions. IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -LAWYERS, I have been asking this question to a lot of DU'ers. dotymed  Nov-14-09 09:23 AM   #0 
  - how do you know the court recorder recorded the decision  merh   Nov-14-09 09:28 AM   #1 
  - The book "Unequal Protection"...  ljm2002   Nov-14-09 09:43 AM   #3 
  - But that is my point.  merh   Nov-14-09 08:23 PM   #20 
     - First, IANAL...  ljm2002   Nov-14-09 10:25 PM   #21 
     - you will have to forgive me  merh   Nov-15-09 01:20 AM   #26 
        - Oh dear, sorry...  ljm2002   Nov-15-09 09:53 AM   #32 
           - Thank you  merh   Nov-15-09 12:14 PM   #36 
     - It was not the court's opinion, in fact one of the justices (I'd have to look up which one)  Greyhound   Nov-15-09 12:34 PM   #40 
        - exactly.... making corporate personhood bull crap  fascisthunter   Nov-17-09 08:55 AM   #94 
  - I read.  dotymed   Nov-14-09 10:26 AM   #5 
  - I've always wondered about that, too  DavidDvorkin   Nov-14-09 09:29 AM   #2 
  - Interesting fact about the court reporter  dragonlady   Nov-14-09 10:07 AM   #4 
  - wow. I never knew that "corporate personhood" had such a weak beginning  adamuu   Nov-14-09 10:27 AM   #6 
  - k&r. . . . . n/t  annabanana   Nov-14-09 11:13 AM   #7 
  - A Person "in law" is defined differently than just a flesh & blood individual.  Xicano   Nov-14-09 12:04 PM   #8 
  - These definitions must have been written after the 1886  dotymed   Nov-15-09 06:17 AM   #28 
     - Yes thank you, I am very aware of the early history.  Xicano   Nov-15-09 12:29 PM   #38 
  - That is a goofy and ridiculous story  jberryhill   Nov-14-09 12:27 PM   #9 
  - In the 18th & 19th centuries, SCOTUS opinions were, in fact, issued orally  stranger81   Nov-14-09 01:53 PM   #13 
  - No  jberryhill   Nov-14-09 02:36 PM   #14 
     - erm -- you might want to look at this...  nashville_brook   Nov-14-09 04:51 PM   #16 
     - Yes I know that, your point?  jberryhill   Nov-14-09 08:15 PM   #18 
     - I think stranger81 is referring to an official or court reporter  Sinti   Nov-14-09 10:34 PM   #22 
        - That's not what this story is based on  jberryhill   Nov-14-09 10:57 PM   #23 
           - I know very little about the story or folklore  Sinti   Nov-14-09 11:18 PM   #24 
           - Yes... Court reporters are awesome....  jberryhill   Nov-15-09 11:09 AM   #33 
              - you'd be surprised how many times I was asked if I was on oxygen n/t  Sinti   Nov-15-09 12:37 PM   #41 
                 - Required equipment for reading freeperville  jberryhill   Nov-15-09 12:47 PM   #42 
                 - lol - the old ones covered the nose too n/t  Sinti   Nov-15-09 01:15 PM   #49 
                 - OMG - another broken down court reporter on DU!!  Manifestor_of_Light   Nov-16-09 12:07 AM   #78 
                    - Lol - the only placed I used a mask was in federal court  Sinti   Nov-16-09 09:49 AM   #82 
           - Dude, educate yourself.  stranger81   Nov-15-09 11:52 AM   #35 
              - Like I said, there is a lot of folklore about this...  jberryhill   Nov-15-09 12:52 PM   #47 
  - Everyone here  dotymed   Nov-15-09 06:40 AM   #29 
  - You are missing the point...  jberryhill   Nov-15-09 04:06 PM   #60 
  - Corporate Personhood is Silly  fascisthunter   Nov-17-09 08:56 AM   #95 
  - Text of the 14th amendment:  Xicano   Nov-14-09 12:28 PM   #10 
  - So, in other words....  jberryhill   Nov-14-09 12:41 PM   #12 
  - No, because  Xicano   Nov-14-09 04:56 PM   #17 
     - Can you tell me what is the singular form of the word "people"?  jberryhill   Nov-14-09 08:18 PM   #19 
        - Yes I could.  Xicano   Nov-15-09 12:31 PM   #39 
  - So can a Corporation become President of the United States?  demwing   Nov-15-09 12:50 PM   #45 
     - Sigh, what is with the retarded responses?  Xicano   Nov-15-09 03:54 PM   #57 
     - Of go fuck yourself you arrogant, conceited shit - I was trying to joke  demwing   Nov-15-09 04:32 PM   #61 
        - Sorry for ticking you off, but, if you're going to post that way, and  Xicano   Nov-15-09 04:55 PM   #64 
     - ...and there you go...  jberryhill   Nov-15-09 03:55 PM   #58 
        - Thanks (I think) for sensing the underlying attempt at humor  demwing   Nov-15-09 04:39 PM   #62 
        - Mark Twain didn't use smileys /nt  jberryhill   Nov-15-09 08:39 PM   #71 
        - I agree the clear intent of the 14th amendment was that persons was to mean "natural born" persons.  Xicano   Nov-15-09 04:49 PM   #63 
           - Here's the thing...  jberryhill   Nov-15-09 08:24 PM   #69 
              - I do understand the premise of your question, and all I am saying is:  Xicano   Nov-15-09 09:10 PM   #72 
  - Check out this movie...  wroberts189   Nov-14-09 12:33 PM   #11 
  - Wiki recap of matter  kristopher   Nov-14-09 02:55 PM   #15 
  - A perfecting union first establishes JUSTICE, then on to laws.  Festivito   Nov-15-09 12:49 AM   #25 
  - headnotes (ie notes of the court reporter) are not controlling  Hamlette   Nov-15-09 01:50 AM   #27 
  - Corporate Idemnity  dotymed   Nov-15-09 07:20 AM   #30 
     - corporations are not immune  Hamlette   Nov-15-09 12:48 PM   #43 
     - Is there a reason for the different typeface in your posts?  Codeine   Nov-15-09 01:15 PM   #48 
        - There is a font shortage in Indiana  jberryhill   Nov-15-09 01:46 PM   #52 
           - Fonts?  dotymed   Nov-15-09 09:38 PM   #73 
              - It's worse than I thought  jberryhill   Nov-15-09 11:58 PM   #76 
                 - It may be  dotymed   Nov-16-09 11:16 AM   #87 
                    - You have to go out of your way to post in courier font, though.... /nt  jberryhill   Nov-16-09 05:29 PM   #89 
  - If corporate charters, licenses etc were to evaporate after, say  annabanana   Nov-15-09 07:32 AM   #31 
  - if you really want an answer from a lawyer, I'll give it to you  onenote   Nov-15-09 11:22 AM   #34 
  - dupe  Xicano   Nov-15-09 12:28 PM   #37 
  - I have to agree with the other lawyers in this thread. This is a silly myth. Headnotes are not law.  HamdenRice   Nov-15-09 12:48 PM   #44 
  - +1  Crabby Appleton   Nov-15-09 01:29 PM   #50 
  - Good Explanation  jberryhill   Nov-15-09 01:44 PM   #51 
  - I started with headnotes. I remember Lexis came out in my 1st or 2nd year  HamdenRice   Nov-15-09 03:25 PM   #55 
  - I approve this message.  TexasObserver   Nov-15-09 02:13 PM   #53 
  - Ever heard of the "phantom 13th amendment"  jberryhill   Nov-15-09 03:53 PM   #56 
     - I try to avoid all such discussions ...  TexasObserver   Nov-15-09 11:48 PM   #75 
  - You are right. Headnotes are not law.  Manifestor_of_Light   Nov-16-09 12:03 AM   #77 
     - There's no need for an appellate transcript  jberryhill   Nov-16-09 10:58 PM   #91 
  - A complicated problem. Nevertheless, I was encouraged to read  laughingliberal   Nov-15-09 12:51 PM   #46 
  - Oh no, you just don't understand.  Greyhound   Nov-15-09 04:59 PM   #65 
     - Thank you. I underestimated the esteemed company in which I found myself  laughingliberal   Nov-15-09 05:12 PM   #66 
  - This is just about the stupidest thing I have ever heard  AngryAmish   Nov-15-09 02:16 PM   #54 
  - I don't know if this one is part of their bag...  jberryhill   Nov-15-09 03:59 PM   #59 
  - Perhaps but he has company  laughingliberal   Nov-15-09 05:18 PM   #67 
     - You are missing the point  jberryhill   Nov-15-09 08:29 PM   #70 
        - I simply posted a link to an article where Sonia Sotomayor  laughingliberal   Nov-15-09 10:13 PM   #74 
           - Nothing in her comments supports what you're arguing  HamdenRice   Nov-16-09 06:02 AM   #79 
           - I'm just arguing against conveying rights of personhood on corporations  laughingliberal   Nov-16-09 08:58 AM   #81 
           - Yes, but that's not a "personhood" issue...  jberryhill   Nov-16-09 07:20 AM   #80 
  - kick for attention to problem of corporate personhood nt  laughingliberal   Nov-15-09 05:40 PM   #68 
  - Supreme Court cases are decided on naked ideology. Afterwords, clerks hunt for some *justification*  Romulox   Nov-16-09 09:53 AM   #83 
  - Obviously stated by someone who has never read a brief, court opinion  HamdenRice   Nov-16-09 10:29 AM   #84 
     - You never tire of embarassing yourself, Hammy. Have a nice weekend, btw?  Romulox   Nov-16-09 10:31 AM   #85 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Nov-16-09 11:14 AM   #86 
        - Where do you reckon I got the word "penumbra" from, Mr. Holmes?  Romulox   Nov-16-09 11:27 AM   #88 
     - The "tell"...  jberryhill   Nov-16-09 10:53 PM   #90 
        - "What gets taught in law school is largely origami and crossword puzzles"  HamdenRice   Nov-17-09 05:42 AM   #92 
        - The "tell" is that Hammy didn't pick up on the word "penumbra"  Romulox   Nov-17-09 08:51 AM   #93 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   Nov-17-09 10:38 AM   #97 
              - LOL. Since when do you speak for Hamden Rice?  Romulox   Nov-17-09 11:00 AM   #98 
              - Your belief that your reference to "penumbra" is significant...  jberryhill   Nov-17-09 11:35 AM   #100 
                 - Gimmeabreak. It is significant to ANYONE with a passing familiarity with Con law.  Romulox   Nov-17-09 11:54 AM   #102 
                    - That is my point... "a passing familiarity"... /nt  jberryhill   Nov-17-09 11:58 AM   #105 
                       - Deleted message  Name removed   Nov-17-09 12:05 PM   #106 
                       - What absolute tosh. Your (HamdenRice's) ignorance of basic caselaw is not reflective of whatever I  Romulox   Nov-17-09 12:07 PM   #107 
                       - Deleted message  Name removed   Nov-17-09 02:31 PM   #108 
              - Need it be pointed out that Hammy has long FLED this thread, btw?  Romulox   Nov-17-09 11:01 AM   #99 
                 - Ah, because he doesn't obsessively reply 24/7, he has "fled"?  jberryhill   Nov-17-09 11:36 AM   #101 
                 - Deleted message  Name removed   Nov-17-09 11:55 AM   #103 
                 - Deleted message  Name removed   Nov-17-09 05:02 PM   #109 
                 - LOLs. You ran away when you figured out your mistake. nt  Romulox   Nov-17-09 05:07 PM   #110 
                 - Just because I find your responses boring doesn't mean I've fled  HamdenRice   Nov-17-09 06:11 PM   #111 
  - get ready, because if Corps are allowed to Donate Any Amount  fascisthunter   Nov-17-09 09:01 AM   #96 
     - Hence the need for mandatory publicly funded elections  GreenPartyVoter   Nov-17-09 11:57 AM   #104 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC